Article : 300 Provos can keep guns

marco murphy · 12-09-2005 8:32pm #1

By Sunday Life reporter

11 September 2005
UPWARDS of 300 IRA members may be allowed to retain their weapons for personal protection - even after complete decommissioning.

The keep-your-guns deal was hammered out with London and Dublin months before the Provisionals announced an end to their armed campaign in July.

At the time of the "historic" statement, the IRA's Army Council declared that all volunteers had been ordered to dump arms with immediate effect.

But according to sources, the agreement reached would allow more senior members to carry personal weapons for protection against dissident groups violently opposed to decommissioning.

The numbers involved may, however, come as a shock to both governments and is likely to spark outrage among unionists.

For the list is not just restricted to those who guard leading Sinn Fein politicians like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, or to those who hold the rank of officer commanding.

A senior republican source told Sunday Life: "The IRA is a very structured organisation and it would be impossible to put an accurate figure on the numbers permitted to retain guns.

"The deal on disarmament would have foundered if such a key arrangement was not in place."

Both governments have always insisted that any issue relating to arms is a matter for General John de Chastelain and his decommissioning team.

But one NIO source did admit: "There is and remains a genuine concern about dissidents and a few personal protection weapons would be seen by most as a small price to pay for the dismantling of the IRA's war machine."

Speculation continues to grow that complete IRA decommissioning will take place within weeks, paving the way for fresh political talks on devolution.

slnews@belfasttelelgraph.co.uk

They'll need some type of weaponary if you look at what the loyalists are doing imo.

Dimitri · 12-09-2005 8:47pm

They'll need some type of weaponary if you look at what the loyalists are doing imo.

A gun wont stop a bullet. In this case for a gun to protect them it would have to be a fired before the attacker could attack. Thats murder not self defense.

Meh · 13-09-2005 10:59am

Are these illegal guns from the IRA's arsenal we are talking about here, or will these 300 Provos be issued with firearms licenses and allowed to buy legal, registered handguns from a gun shop? If the serial numbers and forensic details of the guns are kept by the police so they can see if any crimes are committed using these guns, then I don't have a problem with this.

linux · 13-09-2005 11:10am

Poblachtach wrote:

By Sunday Life reporter

11 September 2005
UPWARDS of 300 IRA members may be allowed to retain their weapons for personal protection - even after complete decommissioning.

do you have a link to this story? I believe it's a load of nonense.

stevenmu · 13-09-2005 12:53pm

Dimitri wrote:

A gun wont stop a bullet. In this case for a gun to protect them it would have to be a fired before the attacker could attack. Thats murder not self defense.

By your argument if someone puts a gun to your head, there's nothing you can do to defend yourself because you haven't actually been shot yet ? You're also forgetting the possibility that if someone gets shot at the attacker may miss or only wound them, giving them an oppertunity to return fire.

A Dub in Glasgo · 13-09-2005 1:01pm

Dimitri wrote:

A gun wont stop a bullet. In this case for a gun to protect them it would have to be a fired before the attacker could attack. Thats murder not self defense.

I take you agree that the Gardai at the Lusk PO shooting should be charged with murder then?

Hobbes · 13-09-2005 1:16pm

Story sounds like total BS. That is the only news source for this story. Anyone got any other links or to the actual bill in question?

Sparks · 13-09-2005 1:20pm

Meh wrote:

Are these illegal guns from the IRA's arsenal we are talking about here, or will these 300 Provos be issued with firearms licenses and allowed to buy legal, registered handguns from a gun shop? If the serial numbers and forensic details of the guns are kept by the police so they can see if any crimes are committed using these guns, then I don't have a problem with this.

I would.

From the relevant page on the Dept.of Justice's website:

Firearms certificates are only granted for recreational or sporting purposes. You will not be granted a licence for any weapon for the purposes of personal protection, protection of others or the protection of property.

If those rules apply to law-abiding citizens, why should it be waived by those who spent a lot of the last 30 years robbing, kidnapping, terrorising and killing those law-abiding citizens?

hill16 · 13-09-2005 1:46pm

Hopefully some guns will be kept to protect Nationalist areas from increasing Loyalist attacks.

Sparks · 13-09-2005 2:02pm

hill16 wrote:

Hopefully some guns will be kept to protect Nationalist areas from increasing Loyalist attacks.

Indeed - in the holsters of the PSNI, the police service whose job it is to maintain the peace. Not in the back pockets of people who've proven, time and again, that they shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms lest they hurt someone...

A Dub in Glasgo · 13-09-2005 2:12pm

I would imagine that this staory 9if true) is referring to NI not the RoI

CAIN wrote:

Legally Held Gun(s) / Legally Held Weapon(s)

Legally held guns are those for which a fire arms certificate has been issued by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) (and formally by the Royal Ulster Constabulary; RUC). In 1995 there were over 130,000 legally held weapons covered by firearms certificates. 85,000 of these weapons were shotguns. Nationalists in the region have often claimed that the great majority of legally held weapons are owned by Protestants. In the period after their 'ceasefires' Loyalist paramilitaries have used shotguns in attacks because there is no bullet that can be forensically traced to a particular gun. In a wider context the term has been used by Republicans to include those weapons held by the British security forces. In the debate on the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, particularly those belonging to the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Republicans have argued that the issue of weapons held by the security forces in Northern Ireland, together with those for which a fire arms certificate has been issued, also needs to be addressed.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/glossary.htm#L

Sparks · 13-09-2005 2:19pm

Indeed Dub? And will these "minders" of Adams&Co. undertake to only remain within the North when their bosses travel to the Republic?

linux · 13-09-2005 3:12pm

Sparks wrote:

Indeed Dub? And will these "minders" of Adams&Co. undertake to only remain within the North when their bosses travel to the Republic?

ehh? right.

oscarBravo · 13-09-2005 6:49pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I take you agree that the Gardai at the Lusk PO shooting should be charged with murder then?

Only in the provo fantasy world where the police have no powers or privileges whatsoever. Thankfully, we don't live in that world.

linux · 13-09-2005 7:02pm

oscarBravo wrote:

Thankfully, we don't live in that world.

No but we live in a world where police abuse their powers on a regular basis due to a systemic cancer within the Gardai and the GRA.

A Dub in Glasgo · 13-09-2005 7:15pm

oscarBravo wrote:

Only in the provo fantasy world where the police have no powers or privileges whatsoever. Thankfully, we don't live in that world.

eh? You either agree that shooting first to defend yourself is murder or you don't. The question was aimed at the poster who thought it was murder. I do not.

Dimitri · 13-09-2005 7:39pm

stevenmu wrote:

By your argument if someone puts a gun to your head, there's nothing you can do to defend yourself because you haven't actually been shot yet ? You're also forgetting the possibility that if someone gets shot at the attacker may miss or only wound them, giving them an oppertunity to return fire.

No but if a bullet is fired and aimed correctly how will a gun save you. Prehaps i was too general but if someone is employed to kill someone than they tend not to miss. How will a gun save you from a correctly aimed shot? Prehaps a bullet proof vest would be better.

I take you agree that the Gardai at the Lusk PO shooting should be charged with murder then?

No. They were police. A provo is just another citizen as far as i'm concerned and don't have they right to use nor the training to tell when the use of deadly force is necessary. If they should have a gun, i should have a gun and so should everyone else. I agree that their lifes are in far more danger than mine, however they should rely on the psni to protect them or else go into hiding. That is the life they chose. It is not up to them to judge if a person lives or dies, whatever the circumstances. The provos have done this too often in the past, the war is over.

Dimitri · 13-09-2005 7:42pm

linux wrote:

No but we live in a world where police abuse their powers on a regular basis due to a systemic cancer within the Gardai and the GRA.

That still doesnt give them the right to carry arms.

oscarBravo · 13-09-2005 8:33pm

linux wrote:

No but we live in a world where police abuse their powers on a regular basis due to a systemic cancer within the Gardai and the GRA.

Ergo, the shooting by armed officers of criminals was murder? I'm sorry, but there's a big chunk missing from your logic.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You either agree that shooting first to defend yourself is murder or you don't.

In a world with logic, you get to consider the context before jumping to conclusions.

A Dub in Glasgo · 13-09-2005 9:20pm

oscarBravo wrote:

In a world with logic, you get to consider the context before jumping to conclusions.

What logic are you relying on?

Scenerio 1: A man is attacked by armed men, he shoots back with his legally held protection firearm and kills one of his attackers. Murder or self defence?

Scenerio 2: A gunman is holding your daughter hostage with a gun pointing at her head. You have amazing accuracy so you shoot and kill the gunman with your legally held protection firearm. Murder or self defence?

13-09-2005 9:25pm

They should have no more right to carry guns than any other ordinary citizen ie under the licencing laws and I expect that is the case.

However,they might want this story out there.
It makes them look good amongst their peers aswell as acting as a warning to their enemies.

This is not a thread on Lusk by the way,if you want one on that guys open one.
If this one goes down that road it will be locked.

oscarBravo · 13-09-2005 9:25pm

Scenario 3: I'm convinced that my neighbour is planning to kill me, and I shoot him when he's not looking in case he does. Murder or self defence?

linux · 13-09-2005 9:39pm

Earthman wrote:

If this one goes down that road it will be locked.

It should be locked anyway because the story is cock and bull. These type of threads are of no benefit to politics.

marco murphy · 14-09-2005 12:26am

Sorry to post such an irrelevent topic.

14-09-2005 9:25am

linux wrote:

It should be locked anyway because the story is cock and bull. These type of threads are of no benefit to politics.

Could you leave those types of calls to the moderators please.
Thread stays open.

stevenmu · 14-09-2005 9:40am

Dimitri wrote:

No but if a bullet is fired and aimed correctly how will a gun save you. Prehaps i was too general but if someone is employed to kill someone than they tend not to miss. How will a gun save you from a correctly aimed shot? Prehaps a bullet proof vest would be better.

You're right, a gun isn't guaranteed to save you, neither is a bullet proof vest for that matter. All it can do is change your chances of survival in case of attack. The way I see it, these people are quite likely to come under attack at some stage. It's possible they would be killed instantly, in which case having a gun will be absolutely of no use to them. But, they may also survive the initial attack, in which case the ability to return fire will signifigantly improve their chances of survival.

Stabshauptmann · 14-09-2005 10:03am

Its not a matter of "changing their chances of survival". Having the ability to return fire makes them a riskier target.

With so many outstanding questions on matters of collusion I think it unlikly provos will place their lives in the hands of their one time enemies.

Possible senario to consider:
The IRA decommission fully they are seen to be vulnerable. Loyalist paramilitaries which are relativly intacted may go on an all out offensive. This could start the troubles off all over again.

I think the events of the past few days have shown the loyalists to be very unhappy with the way the peace process is going and have the capacity to do considerable harm should their problems not be adressed

Hobbes · 14-09-2005 11:06am

Has anyone actually found any proof that the story is true?

marco murphy · 14-09-2005 9:36pm

I bet theres lot going on that the public dont know about.

Hobbes · 16-09-2005 7:50am

Poblachtach wrote:

I bet theres lot going on that the public dont know about.

I am sure there is. However such a instance would be quite visible and I am sure if it was even remotely true Ian would be preaching to anyone who heard him.

dlofnep · 16-09-2005 2:55pm

In the united states, gun crime is really bad in areas that requires a gun for self defense. I think in this incident, their lifes are very much in danger and there is nothing wrong with having a gun for self defense.. Same scenario but just because it's IRA members, they'll blow it out of proportion.. It doesn't mean the IRA are going out to shoot people, it just means they value their own life and need to be able to defend themselves should an attack happen.

If someone kicks in my door and has a gun, I'm going to pop him one straight in the head. People blow this crap too much out of proportion. I see nothing wrong with having a gun.

Article : 300 Provos can keep guns

Comments